Talk:Welspun Energy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Content dispute

WP:3RR limit. So now I bring the matter to the community for consensus. Should Savwelspun's edits be allowed to remain? Comments please. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Request for comments

Regarding the issue listed above, I have tried to engage

consensus from other users regarding this issue. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Comment. I added some information concerning wind and solar projects, so I hope that concerns of EllenCT are resolved. It certainly needs additional references. At the same time, copy-paste from the corporate website is not acceptable. Beagel (talk) 17:27, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thank you both Beagel and EllenCT for your input. Beagel, I like your approach. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Greetings, I was randomly selected to review the RFC and this conflict should be a no-brainer.
Problem 1: Reading the article itself it is obvious that we are looking at advertising, not an encyclopedia entry. The article needs to be re-written to eliminate the obvious advertising and make it encyclopedic. After all, Wikipedia strives to live up to the quality standards of historic, written encyclopedias, and the article in question fails to meet even minimal encyclopedic standards.
Problem 2: The user name Savwelspun violates Wikipedia policy
Single Purpose Account
als qualifies for the user to be banned.
Problem 3: The article is employing fortune telling which is also against Wikipedia policy. The article talks about what the company plans to do, it does not cover the history of the company, no biographics, nothing that makes the article encyclopedic.
Proposed solution: Ban user Savwelspun for policy violations and when the company creates more
WP:SPA user accounts, IP-block the company. Also editor WikiDan61 needs to restore the edits that WikiDan61 has proposed and a Third Party needs to review the changes so that the RFC can be closed. Damotclese (talk) 19:15, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Comment - RFCBot selected me randomly to participate here. However, the RFC is very poorly formed, the question is not neutral, and I cannot tell if we are being asked to comment on the dispute between two editors (which is inappropriate for a talk page) or to address the issue they are disputing. I suggest abandoning this effort, reading up on
    RFCs and restating the question in a new RFC which is neutral and avoids mention of a dispute. Jojalozzo 20:24, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]